[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200802161058.49473.david-b@pacbell.net>
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2008 10:58:48 -0800
From: David Brownell <david-b@...bell.net>
To: Atsushi Nemoto <anemo@....ocn.ne.jp>
Cc: spi-devel-general@...ts.sourceforge.net,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: spi transfer with zero length
On Saturday 16 February 2008, Atsushi Nemoto wrote:
> Hi. Is it legal to use zero for 'len' field of struct spi_transfer?
> I mean, len=0, tx_buf=rx_buf=NULL, delay_usecs!=0.
Yes that should work ... it's uncommon, but not illegal. Some
controller drivers may even handle that right!
If the delay were zero and cs_change didn't indicate a need to
briefly deselect the chip, it might make sense to reject such
a NOP transfer. But that's not the case you identify.
> Some SPI devices need slightly long delay before first CLK edge after
> CS assertion.
For future reference ... could you identify a few such devices,
and say what "long" is relative to the clock period?
Some folk have just slowed down the clock in such cases, but
that's rather sub-optimal.
> To achieve this, I think inserting using a zero length
> transfer before real transfers. But it seems some drivers do not
> handle this case properly.
Feel free to submit patches fixing those bugs.
> Is this driver's bug, or we need additional delay field in struct
> spi_device for such case?
I'd like to avoid new parameters to cover case that can already
be expressed in the programming interface. Cases that can't be
expressed ... different issue. I suspect any patches updating
timing parameters should use nanoseconds not microseconds, fwiw.
- Dave
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists